Will Obama shake Rouhani’s hand?

When President Nixon visited China in 1972 and met Chairman Mao, the tectonic plates of global geopolitics shifted. A similar realignment of world order could come about if the current rapprochement between the US-led West and Iran, signalled by a landmark nuclear freeze deal signed in Geneva on Sunday, realises its early promise.

It would have momentous implications for power balances in Asia, leaving India holding more diplomatic cards than before. If a comprehensive agreement follows and President Obama visits Tehran sometime soon, then universal derision that greeted the award of the 2009 Nobel peace prize to Obama – he himself said he was “surprised” by the award – could change into an appreciation of its brilliant prescience.

The similarities are beguiling. Like the present Geneva accord the Nixon-Mao rapprochement was preceded by months of secret diplomacy, which included national security adviser Henry Kissinger having to feign illness while on a trip to Pakistan (down, perhaps, with a touch of Islamabad Belly). Secret diplomacy was necessitated as Nixon had stalwart anti-communist credentials and couldn’t afford to shock friends and allies till he nailed down something (much as ostensible friends and allies of Obama, such as Binyamin Netanyahu or Saudi monarchs, are shocked and trying their very best to scuttle the Iran deal now). Moreover America was war-weary and counting its losses in Vietnam, even as civil unrest raged at home against its international entanglements.

Rapprochement with China enabled America to divide the communist camp and claw its way back in the Cold War, culminating in the West’s ultimate triumph two decades hence. It, however, leveraged and made the most of the Sino-Soviet rift that had already opened up by then — China and the USSR even fought a short border war in 1969. Likewise, there is conflict now between Sunnis and Shias across large parts of the Muslim world. Rather than placing all its eggs in the Sunni basket it makes greater sense for the US to play a more even handed role – especially when, following 9/11, Sunni Wahhabi radicalism is perhaps the gravest security threat it faces.

An understanding with Iran would enable the US to cut its losses in Asia even as it winds down in Afghanistan, turning its strategic ‘pivot to Asia’ into a smart pirouette. It could help settle the Syrian civil war and perhaps even the Palestinian conflict as the US ceases simply being played by Israel and the Jewish lobby in Washington.

Such a pirouette will be made easier by America’s growing energy independence from Saudi Arabia. Lifting of Iran sanctions could release a deluge of oil into world markets even as production picks up in Libya, Iraq, Canada and the US itself – leaving fewer petrodollars for the funding of Sunni Wahhabi radicalism. America’s turn towards Iran could thus be the key to the West’s victory over Islamist extremism, much as the turn towards China presaged its ultimate victory in the Cold War.

The turn towards China, it must be noted, had extremely adverse consequences for India. Nixon was the most anti-Indian among US presidents. Pakistan’s role as midwife to the US-China deal cemented a US-Pakistan-China axis that played no small role in constraining India’s options and preventing it from emerging as a major power. It also made Pakistan a nuclear power and tossed non-proliferation out of the window, as Pakistan in turn shared nuclear technology with others (AQ Khan, father of Pakistan’s bomb, was described as having opened a ‘nuclear Walmart’ ). By contrast, a US-Iran deal will prevent Iran from going nuclear (and thereby Saudi Arabia too). India would not like to see proliferation in its neighbourhood, a goal that would be facilitated by the US-Iran deal.

New Delhi did not play as significant a role in midwifing the US-Iran deal as Islamabad did for the US-China deal. While there was no occasion for US negotiators like William Burns, Jake Sullivan and John Kerry to undergo a spot of Delhi Belly (Oman took over that role), it’s learnt now that India has consistently been urging Iran to talk directly to the US. And so it should. The advent of cheaper oil, the puncturing of Wahhabi Islamist radicalism and elimination of the need to balance between friends are all good as far as India is concerned. India’s only access to Afghanistan is through Iran and the latter can deter a Taliban takeover of the country once the US departs.

A Taliban takeover of Afghanistan would be immensely destabilising for both Pakistan and India. It could also scuttle prospects of a peace deal between the two nations. As Pakistan lurches towards radicalism it would be useful to have Iran travelling in the opposite direction and integrating with the world. It would then be in a position to tell Pakistan – been there, done that and it wasn’t that great. And how dare you offer no protection to Shias when they are butchered in your country.

Keep your fingers crossed that Washington and Tehran manage to settle their blood feud and the Geneva deal results in a comprehensive breakthrough, normalising Iran’s relationship with the West. If Obama does make that trip to Tehran and shake Rouhani’s hand, it will be a bonus.

DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author's own.

Comments on this post are closed now

Be the first one to review.

Author

After drinking at various disciplinary streams, which included an engineering degree from IIT Kanpur and a doctorate in literature from the University of Pennsylvania, Swagato Ganguly now edits “The Times of Ideas”, the editorial page of the Times of India. He’s fascinated by ideas in all shapes, sizes and guises, whether well-cooked or medium-rare – but especially as they motivate everyday living. He’s also interested in the Indian middle class, in its uniqueness as well as globality. In his view Indian politics is torn between ideological extremes, and would do well to discover a liberal middle. His biggest weaknesses are movies, art, and brewing and sipping a good cup of coffee, for which he gets little time.

After drinking at various disciplinary streams, which included an engineering degree from IIT Kanpur and a doctorate in literature from the University of Pe. . .